We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Bird Dog: No kidding!

QUOTE:

Millar et al: "Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0◦C above the mid-nineteenth century...

"the possibility that both Chinese and global emissions are at or near their peak, and could reduce from 2020, seems less far-fetched than it once did."

This hardly supports the skeptical view. Rather, the study clearly indicates that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, but that mitigation is already starting to work.

It's sort of like the story of a fire alarm. People shout that they have to put the fire out or the fire will spread and the whole town might burn down. Simplicio decides to do nothing. The rest of the townsfolk are upset, but go about putting out the fire. When all is said and done, Simplicio smugly points out that the town didn't burn down, after all.

indyjonesouthere: The only feedback mechanism in AGW is government money for those who provide the results that government wants so that government can demand more money and power to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

CO2 works as a feedback. For instance, if an orbital change causes an increase in solar insolation, the oceans will warm. Warmer water can hold less CO2, so atmospheric CO2 will increase. This warms the Earth further, leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere. A feedback mechanism.

Conversely, if an orbital change causes a decrease in solar insolation, the oceans will cool. Cooler water can hold more CO2, so atmospheric CO2 will decrease. This cools the Earth further, leading to less CO2 in the atmosphere. A feedback mechanism.

The Earth's cryosphere also works as a feedback, and in the same direction.

There are two possibilities: 1. Mitigation has led to a slowdown in the growth of CO2, and thus temperature is not increasing at as fast a rate as the models initially proposed, and 2. The models overstated the effect of CO2 on temperature from the beginning.

If you are willing to concede that the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is decreasing, then we can admit option 1 as a possibility. However, reports from earlier this year were that the rate is increasing and the rate of change (2nd derivative) is also increasing.

This leaves as a possibility that the models routinely overstate the climate sensitivity, either because they use incorrect parameters internally, or because they use as input data which has been adjusted using algorithms that implicitly include the assumption that temperatures are rising.

Another guy named Dan: There are two possibilities: 1. Mitigation has led to a slowdown in the growth of CO2, and thus temperature is not increasing at as fast a rate as the models initially proposed, and 2. The models overstated the effect of CO2 on temperature from the beginning.

Another guy named Dan: If you are willing to concede that the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is decreasing ...

When compared to previous projections.

Another guy named Dan: This leaves as a possibility that the models routinely overstate the climate sensitivity, either because they use incorrect parameters internally, or because they use as input data which has been adjusted using algorithms that implicitly include the assumption that temperatures are rising.

Increasing global mean temperature is not an assumption, but an observation.

Independent statistical and scientific analysis has repeatedly supported the finding that the Earth's mean surface temperature is warming; such as the Berkeley Earth project, which works from the raw unadjusted data to determine the trend.

Berkeley Earth collects data from 16 different sources. Wherever a source has an unadjusted version, that version is used. If multiple data sources have records for the same location, unadjusted values are given priority over adjusted values.

In short, the Berkeley Earth Project includes raw data in their analysis, but it doesn't work exclusively with raw data.

For people capable of thinking about how data works, it should come as no surprise that any time you compare one set of findings drawn from adjusted data, with another set of findings drawn from data that includes the adjusted data used for the first findings, you're going to see some similarities in your results.

Note that I'm not arguing that Berkeley Earth is wrong about their findings; just pointing out that those findings are not quite the "independent" confirmation some would like.

Not that that matters to you. This sort of sleight-of-hand trick where whatever you are saying at the moment doesn't hold up under scrutiny (temperature "observations" when it's really adjustments; raw data when it's only partially raw; and all manner of contortions to move the discussion away from a report that climate change is not turning out to be as alarming a threat as the models predicted) has become tedious and predictable.

Wrong. The blue line represents Berkeley Earth's consolidated data set, which (as already established) comes from 16 different sources, not all of which are raw or unadjusted data. (For more info, see: link.)

The green and blue lines are Berkeley Earth's own adjustments (homogenization) to the data set they assembled.

So I was correct when I said:

QUOTE:

In short, the Berkeley Earth Project includes raw data in their analysis, but it doesn't work exclusively with raw data.

You misrepresented Berkeley Earth's work. When you were called on it, you doubled down on the lies bout their data. I'm sure this isn't the last attempt at misdirection that we'll see from you (it's almost like you're unable to post without misrepresenting something), but rest assured, you aren't fooling anyone.

The BEST project's Prof Richard Muller: "There were issues of data changes. Some of the prior groups had adjusted the data and lost all record of how they had adjusted it. So we went back to the raw data and used only that."

"Underreported: What Happened When Government Tried to Fix a Coal Town"

Want to know why coal miners are not tech nerds? It's because they are coal miners. The whole retraining people thing is stupid. It's like saying; let's build robotic trucks and retrain the truckers to be robotics engineers. Um, guess why they aren't already robotics engineers. This is not to disparage coal miners or truckers. The pussy coders and robotics nerds can't do their job either.

During 2nd pregnancy, I did more exercise than I had with 1st one. Nothing major, just walking on a treadmill for maybe 30 to 45 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. Easy stuff. This was first trimester. I went to appointment at 3-month mark and had lost 2 pounds. Was told to stop 'excessive' exercise.

I didn't think that was excessive, but afterwards I stopped going to the gym at all b/c I didn't know what to do. No one told me, and I was worried I was doing too much.

I should've just stuck to my routine. Big mistake to listen to doc. But when you are told weight loss is bad during pregnancy, you get scared.

It would've been better for them to say, go ahead and continue what you are doing and we'll check on you next month. A few pounds isn't that big of a deal. Especially in first trimester when you typically have morning sickness and nausea.

Weight measured one time is a Single Point Statistic ie BS. What time of the year, what cloths, etc. Measure daily in the same state of dress, record and look at the trend. Otherwise it is just another number.

What’s sad is that many of these foundations were originally endowed by America’s first generation of great capitalists but have decided to spit on the legacy created by these captains of industry. It is very doubtful William Randolph Hearst, J.P. Morgan, John D. MacArthur, Andrew Carnegie, Richard Mellon, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, or W. K. Kellogg, would support efforts to move America toward socialism or assist terrorists who desire to destroy America. These foundations have been captured by the left and now use the money created by free enterprise to attack the very system which created such wealth.

The tax revision needs to eliminate tax deductions for donations to any "foundation" which engages in any way in politics, or supports or espouses "social engineering" or "thought leadership", or serves as employment welfare for political cronies (eg, the Clinton pay-for-play enterprise).

Government grants to "foundations" in general should cease completely - why should our government borrow 40% of our budget, and yet pay grants to any"foundations"? Let them borrow money directly.

In re Benjamin Franklin: they characterized it as looking for Confederacy connections, but in actuality it will be researching whether James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin ever owned slaves, tolerated the ownership of slaves, or if they were friends with, related to, or acquainted with (in any non-adversarial way) anyone who owned slaves or tolerated the ownership of slaves.

Ultimately both Judaism and Christianity will have to be investigated of course.

The Bible is full of personalities who "owned slaves, tolerated the ownership of slaves, or if they were friends with, related to, or acquainted with (in any non-adversarial way) anyone who owned slaves or tolerated the ownership of slaves".

And since more or less everybody's ancestors (see my note below) at one time or another in history "owned slaves, tolerated the ownership of slaves, or if they were friends with, related to, or acquainted with (in any non-adversarial way) anyone who owned slaves or tolerated the ownership of slaves", I suppose we are all going to have to wear hair vests and flagellate ourselves.

Note: I once watched one of those genealogy shows on PBS in which an African-American family wanted to learn if the family lore that claimed they were descended from some of the earliest free blacks in the Carolinas was true.

It turned out that it was indeed true - they were already freemen at the beginning of the 19th Century. However, they learned something else which clearly caused a bit of consternation amongst them: their ancestors owned a number of slaves.

As freemen, they were perfectly entitled to purchase their own slaves of course. And so they did.

It doesn't support the straw man you pretend is the skeptic's POV, but it absolutely does support the skeptics' POV.

1. There has been slight warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Shocking.
2. There is some consensus that humans might have some influence on that. That's how the pollsters word those questions, in order to pad their numbers and spread alarm.
2A. There is not a majority consensus that humans have definitely been most of that.
3. There is little evidence of a looming catastrophe, and some counter-evidence that it will actually be beneficial.

Assistant Village Idiot: It doesn't support the straw man you pretend is the skeptic's POV

The study says that warming is occurring at 0.2°C per decade, concluding that "Our analysis suggests that ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C’ is not chasing a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significant strengthening of the NDCs (Nationally
Determined Contributions) at the first opportunity in 2020 to hedge against the risks of a higher-than-expected climate response and/or economic, technical or political impediments to sustained reductions at historically unprecedented rates after 2030.

No. Their scientific findings do not support the skeptics point-of-view.

You consistently have trouble answering all objections, but just choosing the ones you like, and usually twisting even those 30 degrees at every ratchet. Now you are saying that mitigation must have worked, a little, kinda, because the numbers might be better. Sure, what else could it be, eh? With no evidence, you declare your theory to be obviously true.

Assistant Village Idiot: With no evidence, you declare your theory to be obviously true.

The evidence is in the paper. Did you read it? Millar et al., Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, Nature Geoscience 2017.

We were pointed indirectly to the paper by the original post, and took a look at it to see what it actually says. We've quoted it several times. There is nothing in the study which supports the skeptical view that anthropogenic global warming is not a significant problem. Rather, it's all about what it will take to limit such warming.

Myles Allen, co-author: "Do I think we’re doomed to disastrous warming? Absolutely not. But do I think we are doomed if we persist in our current approach to climate policy? I’m afraid the answer is yes."

Using historical environmental temperature records you need to account for errors of accuracy built into the thermometer and errors of resolution built into the instrument as well as errors of observation and recording of the temperature. In a typical high quality glass thermometer, the accuracy would be +/- 1.4F. (2% of range) The resolution of the observer would be around +/-1F. So the total error margin in weather station temperatures would be a minimum of +/-2.5F, or +/-1.30c.
The temperature measurements at weather stations were not made by precision laboratory instruments in a laboratory so the accuracy is unknown. That's why I don't get excited about the global average temperature calculations.

Ray: Using historical environmental temperature records you need to account for errors of accuracy built into the thermometer and errors of resolution built into the instrument as well as errors of observation and recording of the temperature.

Sure. That's what statisticians do when they examine observational data.

Ray: In a typical high quality glass thermometer, the accuracy would be +/- 1.4F.

Standard, high quality thermometers of the 19th century were accurate to approximately +-0.2°F (precision laboratory thermometers were good to +-0.01°C), but not all observers were equally careful, so you would be safe assuming an accuracy of +-0.5°F. The larger problem is the poor distribution of measuring stations, changes in instrumentation, and other factors, such as time of day when measurements were taken.

Ray: The temperature measurements at weather stations were not made by precision laboratory instruments in a laboratory so the accuracy is unknown.

That's less important than you might think. Multiple measurements can improve precision, and statistical techniques can be used to determine trends in the data.

Assume a thousand thermometers distributed over a region. Assume an error rate of +-1°C. If 950 of the thermometers are showing a positive trend of 1°C over time, the rest showing either no change or a small decline, what is the probability that this is due to chance observational error alone? (One way to determine this would be to calculate the mean and standard distribution.)

(precision laboratory thermometers were good to +-0.01°C)
Come on Zach. Platinum resistance thermometers are known for their high accuracy but they are only good to +- .03 degree. We were thinking of using them on a project but the problem was calibration. You need a cal standard which is 10 times more accurate than what you are calibrating.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: